Interference or no??

[Bassman]

OK folks, try this. Game three of the '75 World Series between the BoSox and the Big Red Machine (That's Boston vs. Cincinnati for those of you in Rio Linda).

Bottom of the 10th and Cesar Geronimo is on first. Sparky Anderson sends Ed Armbrister up and after a 1-1 count, Armbrister lays a bunt down. He then runs into Red Sox catcher Carlton Fisk in fair territory, causing Fisk to throw high over second base and Geronimo is safe at third. PU Larry Barnett ruled no interference on Armbrister.

Now, After viewing game three in the confort of my home, I got a chance to see the actual play (thank you Netflix(R) ) and it was, to me, obviously interference. Whaddyathink??

[canadaump6]

Not interference.

[TussAgee11]

By rule, not interference.

What is all the contraversy about?

[TussAgee11]

Wonder if this was in the rules in 1975?

Rule 7.09(i) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base “obstruction” shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.

[UES]

Originally Posted by Bassman

OK folks, try this. Game three of the '75 World Series between the BoSox and the Big Red Machine (That's Boston vs. Cincinnati for those of you in Rio Linda).

Bottom of the 10th and Cesar Geronimo is on first. Sparky Anderson sends Ed Armbrister up and after a 1-1 count, Armbrister lays a bunt down. He then runs into Red Sox catcher Carlton Fisk in fair territory, causing Fisk to throw high over second base and Geronimo is safe at third. PU Larry Barnett ruled no interference on Armbrister.

Now, After viewing game three in the confort of my home, I got a chance to see the actual play (thank you Netflix(R) ) and it was, to me, obviously interference. Whaddyathink??

Despite numerous death threats made on Larry Barnett and his family after that game and throughout the following weeks after the completion of the World Series, the call was indeed made CORRECTLY. Barnett actually had police protection for himself and his family because of the hate mail that he received. He personally discussed the entire incident at Jim Evans Academy and the class actually analyzed the entire play. It was one of the reasons why Rule 7.09i Comment came about.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I voted for the wrong answer by accident. Subtract one of the "no" answers and add one to the "yes" column, as this was not interference. Both players were doing what they were supposed to do, and was incidental contact.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Wonder if this was in the rules in 1975?

Rule 7.09(i) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base “obstruction” shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.

What I've read: It wasn't in the "published rules" (no CMTs were), but was in the instructions to the umpires (or whatever they were called). Based partly on this (correct) call, the CMTs were included in the published rules.